now the analogy is apt, and really, exactly what Israel is doing. however, since savages hide amongst their woman and children, what is the responsibility of the Israeli gov't to protect her own civilians from the Religion of Peace (TM) will inevitably come with collateral damage, since the Religion of Peace (TM) does not abide by the Geneva Conventions. Neither can Israel, if it expects to survive.

In order for us to agree about who bears the responsibility for the bloodshed and destruction, then, we would have to determine whether Israel's approach (a) has the potential of disabling Hezbollah; (b) is narrowly tailored to that purpose; and (c) is the least harmful feasible approach. I would say no to all three. Thus, I do not believe that everything that is happening in Lebanon is on Hezbollah's hands; it is much more complex than that. Israel is responsible for some of the casualties of this war.

I believe that (a) Israel already has put a large dent in Hezbollah; whether they can completely destroyed is irrelevant because the question is whether the threat can be minimized to an acceptable level. If Israel cannot destroy Hezbollah completely, then pushing them into the mountains might be just as good. (b) Israel has narrowly taylored their strikes as much as is possible when fighting an enemy which hides amongst civilians. (c) Israel's options include much more destructive means (nuclear, or total war), thus Israel has chosen the path of least possible harm.

A) What if Hizballah comes out even stronger out of this conflict, garners even more support among the Lebanese Christians, Sunnis and Shi'tes and becomes a symbol of resistance?What if they are pushed into the mountains for now but re-emerge after the conflict ends and the world attention moves to other conflicts such as Iraq?

B) How do militias fight if not from civilian areas, are you suggesting that they all assemble on a land with their rockets and machine guns to face Israeli military machine?

C) Do you really think using those options would solve Israel's problem?

The solution to this conflict and any other conflict in the middle-east is as complicated as the middle-east itself. Simplifying the conflict in black and white terms just wont cut it.

now the analogy is apt, and really, exactly what Israel is doing. however, since savages hide amongst their woman and children, what is the responsibility of the Israeli gov't to protect her own civilians from the Religion of Peace (TM) will inevitably come with collateral damage, since the Religion of Peace (TM) does not abide by the Geneva Conventions. Neither can Israel, if it expects to survive.

In order for us to agree about who bears the responsibility for the bloodshed and destruction, then, we would have to determine whether Israel's approach (a) has the potential of disabling Hezbollah; (b) is narrowly tailored to that purpose; and (c) is the least harmful feasible approach. I would say no to all three. Thus, I do not believe that everything that is happening in Lebanon is on Hezbollah's hands; it is much more complex than that. Israel is responsible for some of the casualties of this war.

I believe that (a) Israel already has put a large dent in Hezbollah; whether they can completely destroyed is irrelevant because the question is whether the threat can be minimized to an acceptable level. If Israel cannot destroy Hezbollah completely, then pushing them into the mountains might be just as good. (b) Israel has narrowly taylored their strikes as much as is possible when fighting an enemy which hides amongst civilians. (c) Israel's options include much more destructive means (nuclear, or total war), thus Israel has chosen the path of least possible harm.

A) What if Hizballah comes out even stronger out of this conflict, garners even more support among the Lebanese Christians, Sunnis and Shi'tes and becomes a symbol of resistance?What if they are pushed into the mountains for now but re-emerge after the conflict ends and the world attention moves to other conflicts such as Iraq?

B) How do militias fight if not from civilian areas, are you suggesting that they all assemble on a land with their rockets and machine guns to face Israeli military machine?

C) Do you really think using those options would solve Israel's problem?

The solution to this conflict and any other conflict in the middle-east is as complicated as the middle-east itself. Simplifying the conflict in black and white terms just wont cut it.

A) that is why Israel is trying to destroy them comletely. if they reemerge, Lebanon will be sent back to 1950 again.B) They can fight from civilian areas, but should be precluded from complaining of civilian casualties. Sorry, cant attack Israel with impunity, no matter what you hide behind.C) There is nothing Israel can do to solve their problem because there is nothing the other side wants besides the destruction of Israel. It isnt land for peace, it is dead Israelis for peace.

now the analogy is apt, and really, exactly what Israel is doing. however, since savages hide amongst their woman and children, what is the responsibility of the Israeli gov't to protect her own civilians from the Religion of Peace (TM) will inevitably come with collateral damage, since the Religion of Peace (TM) does not abide by the Geneva Conventions. Neither can Israel, if it expects to survive.

In order for us to agree about who bears the responsibility for the bloodshed and destruction, then, we would have to determine whether Israel's approach (a) has the potential of disabling Hezbollah; (b) is narrowly tailored to that purpose; and (c) is the least harmful feasible approach. I would say no to all three. Thus, I do not believe that everything that is happening in Lebanon is on Hezbollah's hands; it is much more complex than that. Israel is responsible for some of the casualties of this war.

I believe that (a) Israel already has put a large dent in Hezbollah; whether they can completely destroyed is irrelevant because the question is whether the threat can be minimized to an acceptable level. If Israel cannot destroy Hezbollah completely, then pushing them into the mountains might be just as good. (b) Israel has narrowly taylored their strikes as much as is possible when fighting an enemy which hides amongst civilians. (c) Israel's options include much more destructive means (nuclear, or total war), thus Israel has chosen the path of least possible harm.

A) What if Hizballah comes out even stronger out of this conflict, garners even more support among the Lebanese Christians, Sunnis and Shi'tes and becomes a symbol of resistance?What if they are pushed into the mountains for now but re-emerge after the conflict ends and the world attention moves to other conflicts such as Iraq?

B) How do militias fight if not from civilian areas, are you suggesting that they all assemble on a land with their rockets and machine guns to face Israeli military machine?

C) Do you really think using those options would solve Israel's problem?

The solution to this conflict and any other conflict in the middle-east is as complicated as the middle-east itself. Simplifying the conflict in black and white terms just wont cut it.

A) that is why Israel is trying to destroy them comletely. if they reemerge, Lebanon will be sent back to 1950 again.B) They can fight from civilian areas, but should be precluded from complaining of civilian casualties. Sorry, cant attack Israel with impunity, no matter what you hide behind.C) There is nothing Israel can do to solve their problem because there is nothing the other side wants besides the destruction of Israel. It isnt land for peace, it is dead Israelis for peace.

A) Israel is trying...will is accomplish? If Hizballah is destroyed wouldn't there be some other militia to take their place? Would Iran abandon its sinister plot to secretly harm Israel?

B) Do you really think Hizballah is taking the cover of civilians to fight this way? Have you seen Lebanese cities and towns on TV - reporters call them "ghost towns" because majority of civilians have left the fighting areas. Who remains in the cities? Poor people, children, people with no means of transportation or assistance. Hizballah is fighting from civilian areas FOR its civilians, why would it use the cover of same people who support its very existence is Lebanon? Wouldn't that hurt Hizballah?

Also do you mean Lebanese blood is inferior to Israeli blood? I thought killing innocent civilians was against the international law.

C) Do you really think the other side wants "death to Israel and jews"? Does Hizballah attack jews anywhere else in the world? I think no one in this world wants to live under the rule of the gun be it Israel or Hizballah.

now the analogy is apt, and really, exactly what Israel is doing. however, since savages hide amongst their woman and children, what is the responsibility of the Israeli gov't to protect her own civilians from the Religion of Peace (TM) will inevitably come with collateral damage, since the Religion of Peace (TM) does not abide by the Geneva Conventions. Neither can Israel, if it expects to survive.

In order for us to agree about who bears the responsibility for the bloodshed and destruction, then, we would have to determine whether Israel's approach (a) has the potential of disabling Hezbollah; (b) is narrowly tailored to that purpose; and (c) is the least harmful feasible approach. I would say no to all three. Thus, I do not believe that everything that is happening in Lebanon is on Hezbollah's hands; it is much more complex than that. Israel is responsible for some of the casualties of this war.

I believe that (a) Israel already has put a large dent in Hezbollah; whether they can completely destroyed is irrelevant because the question is whether the threat can be minimized to an acceptable level. If Israel cannot destroy Hezbollah completely, then pushing them into the mountains might be just as good. (b) Israel has narrowly taylored their strikes as much as is possible when fighting an enemy which hides amongst civilians. (c) Israel's options include much more destructive means (nuclear, or total war), thus Israel has chosen the path of least possible harm.

A) What if Hizballah comes out even stronger out of this conflict, garners even more support among the Lebanese Christians, Sunnis and Shi'tes and becomes a symbol of resistance?What if they are pushed into the mountains for now but re-emerge after the conflict ends and the world attention moves to other conflicts such as Iraq?

B) How do militias fight if not from civilian areas, are you suggesting that they all assemble on a land with their rockets and machine guns to face Israeli military machine?

C) Do you really think using those options would solve Israel's problem?

The solution to this conflict and any other conflict in the middle-east is as complicated as the middle-east itself. Simplifying the conflict in black and white terms just wont cut it.

A) that is why Israel is trying to destroy them comletely. if they reemerge, Lebanon will be sent back to 1950 again.B) They can fight from civilian areas, but should be precluded from complaining of civilian casualties. Sorry, cant attack Israel with impunity, no matter what you hide behind.C) There is nothing Israel can do to solve their problem because there is nothing the other side wants besides the destruction of Israel. It isnt land for peace, it is dead Israelis for peace.

A) Israel is trying...will is accomplish? If Hizballah is destroyed wouldn't there be some other militia to take their place? Would Iran abandon its sinister plot to secretly harm Israel?

B) Do you really think Hizballah is taking the cover of civilians to fight this way? Have you seen Lebanese cities and towns on TV - reporters call them "ghost towns" because majority of civilians have left the fighting areas. Who remains in the cities? Poor people, children, people with no means of transportation or assistance. Hizballah is fighting from civilian areas FOR its civilians, why would it use the cover of same people who support its very existence is Lebanon? Wouldn't that hurt Hizballah?

Also do you mean Lebanese blood is inferior to Israeli blood? I thought killing innocent civilians was against the international law.

C) Do you really think the other side wants "death to Israel and jews"? Does Hizballah attack jews anywhere else in the world? I think no one in this world wants to live under the rule of the gun be it Israel or Hizballah.

A) Oh, so there was no point in killing the Nazis in WWII because there was someone else to take their place? I guess Israel has no option but to let Hezbollah proliferate.

B) You admit that Hezbollah is fighting from civilian areas. That is their choice, but htey shouldnt then complain when Israel bombs those areas. Killing innocent civilians is not necessaryily against international law, if it were, then every war in history would be against international law. Hezbollah's tactic of targeting civilians is against international law. Bombing specific areas from which the enemy attacks is not against international law.

If you think that Hezbollah was defending Lebanon when it raided the border and kidnapped two soldiers, then you have let your passions subordinate your reason.

C) The other side has been quite clear in word and deed about wanting death to Israel. Israel gave Gaza to the Palestinians, but just a few days later, the Palestinians were launching rockets from that land. Imagine if Israel gave all of the West Bank too. The Palestinians would just arm themselves (as Hezbollah did) and attack Israel later (as Hezbollah did). What is the point of a cease fire, if the enemy is just going to rearm and attack later?

now the analogy is apt, and really, exactly what Israel is doing. however, since savages hide amongst their woman and children, what is the responsibility of the Israeli gov't to protect her own civilians from the Religion of Peace (TM) will inevitably come with collateral damage, since the Religion of Peace (TM) does not abide by the Geneva Conventions. Neither can Israel, if it expects to survive.

In order for us to agree about who bears the responsibility for the bloodshed and destruction, then, we would have to determine whether Israel's approach (a) has the potential of disabling Hezbollah; (b) is narrowly tailored to that purpose; and (c) is the least harmful feasible approach. I would say no to all three. Thus, I do not believe that everything that is happening in Lebanon is on Hezbollah's hands; it is much more complex than that. Israel is responsible for some of the casualties of this war.

I believe that (a) Israel already has put a large dent in Hezbollah; whether they can completely destroyed is irrelevant because the question is whether the threat can be minimized to an acceptable level. If Israel cannot destroy Hezbollah completely, then pushing them into the mountains might be just as good. (b) Israel has narrowly taylored their strikes as much as is possible when fighting an enemy which hides amongst civilians. (c) Israel's options include much more destructive means (nuclear, or total war), thus Israel has chosen the path of least possible harm.

A) What if Hizballah comes out even stronger out of this conflict, garners even more support among the Lebanese Christians, Sunnis and Shi'tes and becomes a symbol of resistance?What if they are pushed into the mountains for now but re-emerge after the conflict ends and the world attention moves to other conflicts such as Iraq?

B) How do militias fight if not from civilian areas, are you suggesting that they all assemble on a land with their rockets and machine guns to face Israeli military machine?

C) Do you really think using those options would solve Israel's problem?

The solution to this conflict and any other conflict in the middle-east is as complicated as the middle-east itself. Simplifying the conflict in black and white terms just wont cut it.

A) that is why Israel is trying to destroy them comletely. if they reemerge, Lebanon will be sent back to 1950 again.B) They can fight from civilian areas, but should be precluded from complaining of civilian casualties. Sorry, cant attack Israel with impunity, no matter what you hide behind.C) There is nothing Israel can do to solve their problem because there is nothing the other side wants besides the destruction of Israel. It isnt land for peace, it is dead Israelis for peace.

A) Israel is trying...will is accomplish? If Hizballah is destroyed wouldn't there be some other militia to take their place? Would Iran abandon its sinister plot to secretly harm Israel?

B) Do you really think Hizballah is taking the cover of civilians to fight this way? Have you seen Lebanese cities and towns on TV - reporters call them "ghost towns" because majority of civilians have left the fighting areas. Who remains in the cities? Poor people, children, people with no means of transportation or assistance. Hizballah is fighting from civilian areas FOR its civilians, why would it use the cover of same people who support its very existence is Lebanon? Wouldn't that hurt Hizballah?

Also do you mean Lebanese blood is inferior to Israeli blood? I thought killing innocent civilians was against the international law.

C) Do you really think the other side wants "death to Israel and jews"? Does Hizballah attack jews anywhere else in the world? I think no one in this world wants to live under the rule of the gun be it Israel or Hizballah.

A) Oh, so there was no point in killing the Nazis in WWII because there was someone else to take their place? I guess Israel has no option but to let Hezbollah proliferate.

B) You admit that Hezbollah is fighting from civilian areas. That is their choice, but htey shouldnt then complain when Israel bombs those areas. Killing innocent civilians is not necessaryily against international law, if it were, then every war in history would be against international law. Hezbollah's tactic of targeting civilians is against international law. Bombing specific areas from which the enemy attacks is not against international law.

If you think that Hezbollah was defending Lebanon when it raided the border and kidnapped two soldiers, then you have let your passions subordinate your reason.

C) The other side has been quite clear in word and deed about wanting death to Israel. Israel gave Gaza to the Palestinians, but just a few days later, the Palestinians were launching rockets from that land. Imagine if Israel gave all of the West Bank too. The Palestinians would just arm themselves (as Hezbollah did) and attack Israel later (as Hezbollah did). What is the point of a cease fire, if the enemy is just going to rearm and attack later?

A) Nazis Vs Hizballah -----> A Terrible Comparison. Nazis fought wars, wars can be won/lost thus destryoing Nazis. Hizballah is a militia that fights skirmishes, gets hurt, melts back, reinforces, re-emerges. If the "Cause" dies, a militia dies. Let Hizballah Proliferate ?!?! Did i say that? Israel has only one weapon in its arsenal of diplomacy, i.e. a hammer. Unfortunately that ain't working...

B) The whole discussion falls apart if "Killing innocent civilians is not necessaryily against international law..." Then why discuss conflicts, death tolls on either side? Let people die because people will die anyway and lets happily watch the bloodshed because "hey its a war dude."

Indiscriminate shelling of cities constitutes a foreseeable and unacceptable targeting of civilians. Similarly, the bombardment of sites with alleged military significance, but resulting invariably in the killing of innocent civilians, is unjustifiable. International humanitarian law is clear on the supreme obligation to protect civilians during hostilities. This obligation is also expressed in international criminal law, which defines war crimes and crimes against humanity. International law demands accountability. The scale of the killings in the region, and their predictability, could engage the personal criminal responsibility of those involved, particularly those in a position of command and control.

C) Terrorists in Afghanistan keep rearming, hence lets keep carpet bombing its cities, towns and mountains. Terrorists and militias keep on rearming in Iraq so lets keep bombing Baghdad. We wouldn't be living in this world today if there was not a concept of "cease-fire." Talking i believe is more important that shelling. Listening is more important than killing. Sitting on the table with a clean intent to solve the conflict is better than engaging in outright war and destruction. Tom Friedman, U'S's leading foreign policy journalist recently has acknowledged that the US policy in the middle east is flawed. Essentially that means U.S's indescriminate support for Israel and outright rejection of Arab opinion is hurting US reputation in a fragile world while at the same time hurting Israel.

NOTE: You might feel i am supporting Hizballah. I am not. I am however supporting a FREE and FAIR DISCUSSION which is lacking in our media today. Fortunately the world sees our TV Channels and gets to see our views firsthand. Unfortunately we are not able to see what the world media has to say about us and most importantly our policies. Why are we not able to see Al-Jazeera, Al Arabiya and other channels - yes those channels show images we might not like but lets face it we need to understand the other party, their grievances to really know how they feel and what they feel. Israel must defend itself, so should Hizballah. Capturing soldiers was not a smart tactic. And finally true diplomacy does work....if given a chance.

now the analogy is apt, and really, exactly what Israel is doing. however, since savages hide amongst their woman and children, what is the responsibility of the Israeli gov't to protect her own civilians from the Religion of Peace (TM) will inevitably come with collateral damage, since the Religion of Peace (TM) does not abide by the Geneva Conventions. Neither can Israel, if it expects to survive.

In order for us to agree about who bears the responsibility for the bloodshed and destruction, then, we would have to determine whether Israel's approach (a) has the potential of disabling Hezbollah; (b) is narrowly tailored to that purpose; and (c) is the least harmful feasible approach. I would say no to all three. Thus, I do not believe that everything that is happening in Lebanon is on Hezbollah's hands; it is much more complex than that. Israel is responsible for some of the casualties of this war.

I believe that (a) Israel already has put a large dent in Hezbollah; whether they can completely destroyed is irrelevant because the question is whether the threat can be minimized to an acceptable level. If Israel cannot destroy Hezbollah completely, then pushing them into the mountains might be just as good. (b) Israel has narrowly taylored their strikes as much as is possible when fighting an enemy which hides amongst civilians. (c) Israel's options include much more destructive means (nuclear, or total war), thus Israel has chosen the path of least possible harm.

A) What if Hizballah comes out even stronger out of this conflict, garners even more support among the Lebanese Christians, Sunnis and Shi'tes and becomes a symbol of resistance?What if they are pushed into the mountains for now but re-emerge after the conflict ends and the world attention moves to other conflicts such as Iraq?

B) How do militias fight if not from civilian areas, are you suggesting that they all assemble on a land with their rockets and machine guns to face Israeli military machine?

C) Do you really think using those options would solve Israel's problem?

The solution to this conflict and any other conflict in the middle-east is as complicated as the middle-east itself. Simplifying the conflict in black and white terms just wont cut it.

A) that is why Israel is trying to destroy them comletely. if they reemerge, Lebanon will be sent back to 1950 again.B) They can fight from civilian areas, but should be precluded from complaining of civilian casualties. Sorry, cant attack Israel with impunity, no matter what you hide behind.C) There is nothing Israel can do to solve their problem because there is nothing the other side wants besides the destruction of Israel. It isnt land for peace, it is dead Israelis for peace.

A) Israel is trying...will is accomplish? If Hizballah is destroyed wouldn't there be some other militia to take their place? Would Iran abandon its sinister plot to secretly harm Israel?

B) Do you really think Hizballah is taking the cover of civilians to fight this way? Have you seen Lebanese cities and towns on TV - reporters call them "ghost towns" because majority of civilians have left the fighting areas. Who remains in the cities? Poor people, children, people with no means of transportation or assistance. Hizballah is fighting from civilian areas FOR its civilians, why would it use the cover of same people who support its very existence is Lebanon? Wouldn't that hurt Hizballah?

Also do you mean Lebanese blood is inferior to Israeli blood? I thought killing innocent civilians was against the international law.

C) Do you really think the other side wants "death to Israel and jews"? Does Hizballah attack jews anywhere else in the world? I think no one in this world wants to live under the rule of the gun be it Israel or Hizballah.

A) Oh, so there was no point in killing the Nazis in WWII because there was someone else to take their place? I guess Israel has no option but to let Hezbollah proliferate.

B) You admit that Hezbollah is fighting from civilian areas. That is their choice, but htey shouldnt then complain when Israel bombs those areas. Killing innocent civilians is not necessaryily against international law, if it were, then every war in history would be against international law. Hezbollah's tactic of targeting civilians is against international law. Bombing specific areas from which the enemy attacks is not against international law.

If you think that Hezbollah was defending Lebanon when it raided the border and kidnapped two soldiers, then you have let your passions subordinate your reason.

C) The other side has been quite clear in word and deed about wanting death to Israel. Israel gave Gaza to the Palestinians, but just a few days later, the Palestinians were launching rockets from that land. Imagine if Israel gave all of the West Bank too. The Palestinians would just arm themselves (as Hezbollah did) and attack Israel later (as Hezbollah did). What is the point of a cease fire, if the enemy is just going to rearm and attack later?

A) Nazis Vs Hizballah -----> A Terrible Comparison. Nazis fought wars, wars can be won/lost thus destryoing Nazis. Hizballah is a militia that fights skirmishes, gets hurt, melts back, reinforces, re-emerges. If the "Cause" dies, a militia dies. Let Hizballah Proliferate ?!?! Did i say that? Israel has only one weapon in its arsenal of diplomacy, i.e. a hammer. Unfortunately that ain't working...

B) The whole discussion falls apart if "Killing innocent civilians is not necessaryily against international law..." Then why discuss conflicts, death tolls on either side? Let people die because people will die anyway and lets happily watch the bloodshed because "hey its a war dude."

Indiscriminate shelling of cities constitutes a foreseeable and unacceptable targeting of civilians. Similarly, the bombardment of sites with alleged military significance, but resulting invariably in the killing of innocent civilians, is unjustifiable. International humanitarian law is clear on the supreme obligation to protect civilians during hostilities. This obligation is also expressed in international criminal law, which defines war crimes and crimes against humanity. International law demands accountability. The scale of the killings in the region, and their predictability, could engage the personal criminal responsibility of those involved, particularly those in a position of command and control.

C) Terrorists in Afghanistan keep rearming, hence lets keep carpet bombing its cities, towns and mountains. Terrorists and militias keep on rearming in Iraq so lets keep bombing Baghdad. We wouldn't be living in this world today if there was not a concept of "cease-fire." Talking i believe is more important that shelling. Listening is more important than killing. Sitting on the table with a clean intent to solve the conflict is better than engaging in outright war and destruction. Tom Friedman, U'S's leading foreign policy journalist recently has acknowledged that the US policy in the middle east is flawed. Essentially that means U.S's indescriminate support for Israel and outright rejection of Arab opinion is hurting US reputation in a fragile world while at the same time hurting Israel.

NOTE: You might feel i am supporting Hizballah. I am not. I am however supporting a FREE and FAIR DISCUSSION which is lacking in our media today. Fortunately the world sees our TV Channels and gets to see our views firsthand. Unfortunately we are not able to see what the world media has to say about us and most importantly our policies. Why are we not able to see Al-Jazeera, Al Arabiya and other channels - yes those channels show images we might not like but lets face it we need to understand the other party, their grievances to really know how they feel and what they feel. Israel must defend itself, so should Hizballah. Capturing soldiers was not a smart tactic. And finally true diplomacy does work....if given a chance.

You act as if hezbollah is a rational organization with a desire to live side by side with Israel. This is patently untrue. Not only is their stated goal to destory Israel, they constantly raid the border to provoke Israel. The reason Israel responds with a hammer is because the other side refuses rational compromise and negotiation.

Israel gave up Gaza and what did that get them? Explain that.

Israel is not indiscriminately bombing civilians, Hezbollah is indiscriminately bombing Israeli civilians. Israel sees Hezbollah firing from cities, rooftops, hospitals and they fire back. Is Israel supposed to sit back and let Hezbollah flaunt international law, bomb Israel, kidnap soldiers, and lobby for Israel's destruction? No way. The civilian casualties in Lebanon are tragic, but such is war.

now the analogy is apt, and really, exactly what Israel is doing. however, since savages hide amongst their woman and children, what is the responsibility of the Israeli gov't to protect her own civilians from the Religion of Peace (TM) will inevitably come with collateral damage, since the Religion of Peace (TM) does not abide by the Geneva Conventions. Neither can Israel, if it expects to survive.

In order for us to agree about who bears the responsibility for the bloodshed and destruction, then, we would have to determine whether Israel's approach (a) has the potential of disabling Hezbollah; (b) is narrowly tailored to that purpose; and (c) is the least harmful feasible approach. I would say no to all three. Thus, I do not believe that everything that is happening in Lebanon is on Hezbollah's hands; it is much more complex than that. Israel is responsible for some of the casualties of this war.

I believe that (a) Israel already has put a large dent in Hezbollah; whether they can completely destroyed is irrelevant because the question is whether the threat can be minimized to an acceptable level. If Israel cannot destroy Hezbollah completely, then pushing them into the mountains might be just as good. (b) Israel has narrowly taylored their strikes as much as is possible when fighting an enemy which hides amongst civilians. (c) Israel's options include much more destructive means (nuclear, or total war), thus Israel has chosen the path of least possible harm.

You've already taken the LSAT, right? In any case, I hope you don't have to do too much logical reasoning from here out.

(a) I agree with you that the goal should be minimizing Hezbollah's threat. However, as LSATguy points out, this is probably increasing Hezbollah's threat, isn't it? You say that this is why we must destroy Hezbollah completely, but that's a job much more suited for diplomacy, border patrols, and a multinational ground offensive than it is for unilateral airstrikes. The airstrikes -- and particularly the attacks on Christian areas and on Lebanese civilian infrastructure -- are emboldening Hezbollah's supporters, and seem to have done nothing to weaken the armed militants in the south. Meanwhile, Israel is losing international support and neutral organizations like the International Committee of the Red Cross have accused it of violating the Geneva Conventions.

(b) The "human shield" argument doesn't take you very far when you're talking about bombing areas with no Hezbollah presence (or previoius support for Hezbollah) and civilian infrastructure. How, exactly, is this narrowly tailored?

(c) The existence of more destructive paths does not make this the least destructive path.

A) Israel is killing Hezbollah, but neither of us konw whether Hezbollah has actually replaced their dead fighters. Even if Hezbollah is replacing fighters faster than Israel can kill them, Israel has no other choice but to use force against Hezbollah and Lebanon. The UN has been in Lebanon but has done nothing to prevent Hezbollah from raiding the border. When a country decides to use force, it must be of last resort and overwhelming force.

B) Look, war is war and all targets are fair game. In the old days, an army would kill every man woman and child. That is Hezbollah's tactic but Israel is dropping fliers warning of destruction, making phone calls to warn people, and only destroying infrastructure. The fact that Hezbollah uses airports, roads, trains and automobiles to receive thousands of rockets and other munitions, and would use the same to transport their hostage out of Lebanon makes those targets fair game.

You cant have it both ways and say Hezbollah is a terrorist organization, but Israel should have used less force. If Hezbollah is a terrorist organization, then Israel is entitled to use all the force necessary to defeat Hezbollah.

Lebanon is either a rogue state or not a sovereign country. Sovereignty precludes a rogue army from operating within your borders to attack neighbors.

C) A country should use overwhelming force in a war. Of the levels of overwhelming force, Israel is using the least destructive method because they are not deliberately attacking civilians and they are giving plenty of warning.